My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2020 03 03
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2020 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2020 03 03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:15:16 PM
Creation date
3/27/2020 8:32:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
3/3/2020
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 3, 2020 <br />Page 2 of 12 <br /> <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA AND THE CONSENT <br />AGENDA <br /> <br />Jerome Rifkin, 270 W Sycamore Lane, asked why the change so people can’t access the <br />open space, we paid for access so this is a loss of service. There was no notice this was <br />happening; residents would like an explanation and know how they change this. <br /> <br />Erin Lindsey, 826 Trail Ride Dr, stated she is displeased with new gate rules; the gates <br />have been there as long as she can remember. It seems unreasonable to change now. <br /> <br />Hilary Whiton, 814 Flatirons Ct, stated she purchased her house for access to the lake. <br />She wants to know what the environmental impact is of these small social trails. She <br />replaced the fence in the last few years and was told if she paid for it she could maintain <br />the gates. Seems there are higher impact issues in open space that should be addressed. <br /> <br />Tasha Bond, 1841 Sweet Clover Lane, would like to get more information as to why this <br />has happened. There was little outreach to residents. This access has been there for <br />years and if imposing new rules there needs to better communication. This affects <br />children who need more outdoor time; access is key to getting kids outside. She doesn’t <br />understand why this is beneficial. <br /> <br />Pam Wanek 2251 W 154th Pl. Broomfield, stated she is an expert on prairie dogs and <br />supports the protection of prairie dogs. Local governments can affect decisions and have <br />the primary authority to protect wildlife. She submitted two documents to help educate the <br />Council on prairie dogs. <br /> <br />Stephanie Rowe, 361 West St, noted she submitted a proposal to Council on prairie dog <br />management. The proposal came from an ad hoc group looking at options for prairie dog <br />management plans. Lafayette has an excellent plan and approach and the group <br />recommends Louisville adopt a similar plan. She asked Council to review the plan and <br />give it consideration. She also asked the Council to refrain from approving any new <br />development projects that affect prairie dogs until a plan is in place. <br /> <br />Linda Gallegos, 125 Cherry Wood Ln, shared research on prairie dogs and how they <br />affect the greater wildlife community and ecosystem. She is hoping to protect the interests <br />of prairie dogs and land owners. <br /> <br />Cindy Bedell, 662 W. Willow St, supports the City adopting a prairie dog management <br />plan to help save habitat and also supports a moratorium on species removal until a plan <br />is in place. <br /> <br />Martin Ogle, 322 East Raintree Court, stated his background in wildlife biology shows him <br />there is a need to adopt a humane plan and recognize the value of the keystone species <br />and how it affects our land use policies. He urged the Council to defer new development <br />until a plan is adopted.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.